- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com
- cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
I am against the change. The goal is that authors will create accessible content. That could be broken into several pieces, such as authors can create accessible content (there are plenty of tools which have yet to meet that goal), authors are assisted to make accesible content (there are lots of tools that need to achieve that goal), authors are encouraged to make accessible content (There are a couple of tools that have approached this one), authors are assisted, encouraged and helped to repair accessibility problems in existing content, etc. I think that splitting this out sends us back to the complexity that we are trying to avoid in the definitions of priority. At a more fundamental level, if authors are not more likely to create accessible content than inaccessible content then it would seem to me that the tool does not help the accessibility of the web. Which seems a Bad Thing Charles McCN On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com wrote: Since we're implicitly allowing the user to disable warnings (with which I agree), I would like to change the wording of the first goal from: Authors will create accessible content to: Authors can create accessible content -- Buce
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 1999 15:18:49 UTC